Zwirner opened the first YEARLY contemporary art fair in London on July 4th, 1966.

"Here is a very broad desire not just to see art but to own it, a desire that had not been evident in the galleries at all." Thus, building a new and broad collecting base became the driving force behind the founding of KUNSTMARKT, effectively co-opting for a capitalist cause the pervasive calls on the part of leftist student groups to make art more accessible to everyone."

*** I really enjoy this statement because I liked the fact that Zwirner & Stunke wanted to make art more accessible to everyone-students, dealers, collectors, parents' and children-- I believe that art should be shown to everyone and not a select group-art is univeral.***

Printing limited-edition artist-design covers helped bring in more than 130,000 & + people for this art fair every year. These collecting novelties helped bring in the masses.

Vision of art fairs to have a transperant transaction with art.

Zwirner & Stunke purposely made art fairs "Commercial."

"Their focus on contemporary art functioned as both a means of publicity and a matter of economic necessity when appealing to young and adventurous but less affluent audiences."

Art work showing in the fairs had to be progressive.

"During its most vibrant years, between 1967 and 1972, the KUNSTMARKT was largely responsible for generating the most public and open discussion about the contemporary art market in history."

Without the birth of KUNSTMARKT, the art market would not be generating a stedy flow of money." Art is life and the art market is money is obvious in this article.

What would happen if we didn't have an art market?

Why is the lighting so cheesy on poor at the convention center at the Miami Art Basel?

I do not think that showing certain pieces of work in a convention center is not a good thing because of the poor lighting and cheesy curating.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Reading this article made me realize that it is OK to run a space that does not necessarly look or run like a main-stream gallery.

Gallery's are always constantly changing--they act like fluid forms. If gallery's are always changing, than why should an artist be stuck showing in a white cube? If artists were only allowed to show in a white cube - it would limit they're creativity.

"Galleries are now trying to brake their ascent to establishment status by interrupting the flow of monthly shows and finished objects, substituting a month long presentation of short exhibitions and even shorter performances."

There are traditional spaces and alternative spaces, and the fluidity of the white cube falls under the word: transparency.

"Modes of Attention" and rhetoric displays" are slowly being tossed out out the average white cube space.

A New Boss, and a Jolt of Real-World Expertise

Many people in the art world where shocked when they found out the news that Jeffery Deitch, a New York art dealer became the director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, California.

Deitch is a prominent business man who received his MBA in business at Harvard.

He has a fascination with esoteric art. Some people in the art world think is taste in art is ridiculous and some people praise his taste of art.

The reason why some people are shocked that Deitch is the new director of the Museum of Contemporary art because it is unusual that a art dealer becomes director of a Museum.

I am in favor of Deitch accepting the role of art director, because he is a business man and the museum was in a financial crisis and they needed someone who is was more of a business man then an art director.

Anti-Mainstream Museum’s Mainstream Show

Skin Fruit was not a show good for the the New Museums exhibition.

Seeing the show up close did not make mends with the art world.

The show featured significant talets such as Mike Kelley and Cindy Sherman.

The show experienced negative criticism from the beginning.

The New Musuem's motto was about being Anti-Mainstream but it the New Museums exhibtion was very mainstream.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

This article was interesting to me. It helped me understand why sometimes I can be over-confident about certain issues. I am a confident individual. I do rate myself "above average" on charts, but when it comes to having great math skills, I am not afraid to rate myself as average/poor. But I am OK with that. One thing that drives me nuts when I go out at night sometimes is that when people ask me: Are you a good artist?" How am i suppose to answer that? : No? Sometimes? I guess? Many people that I talk to and I tell them that I am in the Fine Art department at Ringling, they automatically think that I am a spectacular drawer or a master sculptor. Well, my drawing skills are not up to par with the illustrators. I am an "ok" drawer" but I do tell people that: "Yes, I am a good artist." I tell people that I am a good artist because why put yourself down. Be proud in what your passion/profession is! If you feel confident in a certain role such as believing that you have great humor, or doing a task well...role with it and own it! Yes, i believe that sometimes ignorance is bliss.

"Most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent."

"students who are usually supremely confident of their abilities--more confident, in fact, than people who do things well."

"Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it."

"self-monitoring skills, helps explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that are not funny."

"English grammar and humor were also the most likely to "grossly overestimate" how well they had performed."

"People who are NOT incompetent tend to "underestimate their own competence."

"In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities."

"In competent individuals were less able to recognize competence in others."

"Overconfidence is common; studies have found. For example, that the vast majority of people rate themselves as "above average" on a wide array of abilities."

"In a golf game, when your ball is heading into the woods, you know you're incompetent."

"Faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out " You stink!"

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

I thought this dance piece was spectacular. It reminded me of relational aesthetics because not just the performers where dancing, but the spectators in the station started to "feel" the beat and the motion of the music. Everyone was experiencing/watching/listening to this performance. This piece created a lot of energy in the room.

It was hard to me to understand what he was trying to say in the video due to his accent.

Zizek is talking about the Musical the Sound of Music the metaphor that the musical portrays is more like a "cheap shot."

Zizek believes that the Nazi's were impersonating the Jews all along.

The Jews where taking over the world in the arts, politics, and banking.

The Nazi's wanted to be like the Jews.

I liked how Zizek used the term "Cross-dress" in describing how the Nazi's wanted to look and have control like the Jews.

I do not understand how this video clip relates to what we are discussing in class. Maybe I am missing something. To me, the Sound of Music is a historic play about WWII. I never considered that the Nazi's wanted to impersonate the Jews in that manor.

How does this video clip relate to our senior thesis?

How is this metaphor of the Nazi's "cross-dressing" like Jews relevant to our class discussions?

Monday, October 4, 2010

The line to sit opposite of Abramovic in the atrium of the MoMA is much indeed apart of her work.

The door policy is anything BUT democratic.

Not even employees at the MoMA rarely get to sit opposite from Abramovic!

Talk about the politics of things!

The space where Abramovic sits creates a feeling of hierarchy.

It seems to me that the MoMA is dealing with a Princess on their hands. How can an artist have so much control and power over people! This article is NOT about democracy. This article relates to antagonism: Toying with the viewer. Playing with status and emotions. This does NOT relate to my work because I don't have a mega name in the art world. I guess artists can have and control over encounters because of how famous they are. Obviously Abramovic's intentions were to create a hizzy at the MoMA by only allowing certain people sit in front of her. But, Let's just say that I wouldn't stand in line for 5 hours just to sit accross from the artist. I believe that when people are infatuated with certain icons if you will, they will do ANY thing to meet or be a part of to feel important.

Questions to consider:

What drives people to stand in line for 5 hours to sit behind a velvet rope?

Why do we want things that we can not necessarly have?

I am still trying to figure this last question out for myself. I'll get back to this at a later time-still baffeled by the red-velvet rope.

Bishop states that: 1990's work opened up a new direction making art work interactive with people.

No longer are art galleries displaying work-but creating a social environment

Having artwork shown in a so called "laboratory" differentiates themselves from a bureaucracy collection-based museums.

Spaces creates a buzz among people. A broader sense of creativity and the aura being present in a space where contemporary art plays a role of production.

Artists showing/working in a "laboratory" gallery space want their viewer to "experience" creativity and studio activity.

Some "laboratory" art spaces have bars or reading lounges!

Hal Foster forcasted that in the mid-1900's the institution (museums) may overshadow the artwork. The bureaucratic museum becomes a spectacle-showing light on the Director/Curator.

Bourriad believes that: " Todays artists seek only to find provisional solutions in the here and now... artists are learning to inhabit the world in a better way." (by showcasing work in a "laboratory".

Artist Tiravanija cooks for his audience- He has observed that this involvement of the audience is the main focus point of his work: Creating a relationship with the artist and the viewer.

Artist Gillick creates an open-endedness in which his art is the backdrop to activity. But isn't a lot of art backdrops of creativity?

Relational art as Bourriaud argues is that : A viewer is physically present in a particular situation at a particular time-eating food, flirting, and having conversation.

The presense of the audience is essential-without people, it's not art-it then becomes something that is in a room".

Relations between the artist and the audience creates new communicative situations.

Bourriaud's argument is that the structure of an art work produces a social relationship.

"A democratic society is one in which relation of conflict are sustained, not erased."

Lacan agruees that: "We have a failed structual identity and are therefore dependent on identifcation in order to proceed."

We need to rethink our relationship to the world and to one other!

This article relates to my work because when I am showing my work I want to create an atmosphere with people, food, and drink. It is important to me that people are engaged with my work and with eachother. I want people to discuss my work and to drift in-and-out of conversation in a social setting. Personally, I do not believe that I have to cook for my audience, I don't believe that I have to prove to my audience that they support me so I should feed them. Which is not what Tiravanija's work is about, but that's how i think of it. Which it's not a bad thing at all, but it is just not "my taste." I do know that my paintings are talking with my viewer and creating conversations. That is all I need in for a show: Great conversations, wonderful art, suppior food, and lushes drinks.